Should I? I have the extra money....does anyone feel like this when they are about to drop 6 grand on three items?
I am gonna upgrade to a full frame in a year or so..but i want some nice fast lenses.....
i wont need anything else after this....lens wise..
could use some pocketwizards and alien bees. hehe

If I had that kind of money, I'd probably just get the wide angle and the telephoto, get the new 50mm f/1.4G to cover the gap and upgrade to full frame. If a body upgrade was out of the question, I'd simply drop the wide angle: 14-24mm probably isn't worth its price if you won't be able to use its extreme wide angle capabilities, and that's not possible on DX.

Sharpness can be modified by cranking up aperture, post processing like sharpening and also cranking up picture style/picture control stuff. I find the Sigma telephoto zoom sharpness is very satisfactory.

The lens has slightly different characteristic than the Nikon's, like it produce slightly warmer color. It has very good smooth bokeh. I think it is a very good lens especially for portraiture. In full frame camera, it does not suffer from vignetting like the Nikon 70-200mm (although many people argue that it does not matter).

The main difference of the two is it does not have Vibration Reduction.

The Sigmas 24-70mm & 70-200mm,both F/2.8 are awesome lenses for te price. And don't worry about vignetting,a single option in Photoshop can fix that very easily. Anyway,expect the same quality in details as the Nikon.

I just know that If i get the Nikkor glass i'll be set for a good while. I'm not saying anything against sigma lenses i've seen how sharp they are. I am still torn as to what to get. i know that if i get sigmas i have more extra spending money to get other goodies. but all i wanted was the lenses and maybe a year from now a FF body. No need to rush on the full frame just yet. I was also considering an epson 1400 printer if i went with sigmas. but yet again, i can be saving 3000 dollars by going with sigma..
..this has all been helpful. i love the examples..its always great to come here before i go and purchase to see some real review..thanks a billion mates.

For wide angle, if that is what you like and is your thing, there really isn't anything comparable to the 14-24 2.8. It's in a league of it's own, even Nikon primes don't touch it.

For the 24-70, all I've heard are amazing things about the Nikon version but it is probably worth trying out a Sigma version if you want to save some cash.

For the 70-200, I would wait on it. Everyone expects Nikon to renew this lens with better performance for full-frame. It performs like a champ on APS-C sensors but suffers more than it should in the corners in full-frame. Still an excellent lens, but the consensus is that Nikon can and will do better.

Or, get the 14-24 for wide angle, get a 50mm 1.4 for medium length, maybe a 85 mm 1.8 for portrait and then spend the big bucks on a 300mm 2.8 VR. Ohh baby! I wish I had that dough to spend!

Should I? I have the extra money....does anyone feel like this when they are about to drop 6 grand on three items?I am gonna upgrade to a full frame in a year or so..but i want some nice fast lenses.....i wont need anything else after this....lens wise..could use some pocketwizards and alien bees. hehe